Registered

However, they say the Agera S will do 0-300-0 in 22.7, and the Agera R does 300-0 in 6.66 sec wich should be identical to the Agera S. However the 6.66 was set by a car with the old brakes aswell as the regular Agera wheels, not the Aircore wheels wich means that the 0-300 time in the Agera S should be lower than 6.66 sec. So i think its safe to say that the Agera S does 0-300 in <16 sec

I know that the stats of the Veyron has never been reproduced, but the fact is that the Agera S shouldn't pull like this on the Veyron.. It should win, but not absolutley destroy it.
What do we know?

We know that the Agera S was driven by the factory testdriver wich means he, most likely, knows how to drive the Agera better than any person on earth as he does that for a living. The stats claimed by Koenigsegg is set by him on that specific track. The Veyron claims was set at Ehra Lessien wich is a far superior test track, so the Veyron shouldn't perform as good at the runway in the video.
We also know that the Veyron driver is a private owner, we don't know about his driving skills but it seems to me that he is flooring it. He happends to have a Veyron SS aswell so im pretty sure he knows how to drive them.

But what bothers me is that we see the Veyron get a headstart in each race, and in each race the Agera S chase it down like it was a Prius, it shouldnt do that to a 1001 bhp car. Now i don't think that Koenigsegg has done any modifications to the car in preparation for the race as this is a customers car that they were able to borrow. I tried to listen to the engine/gearbox and it they seem to run absolutley perfect, no quirks or bad sounds that could appear from a power upgrade for instance.
I know they often use V-boxes in their races, a shame they didn't in this race as it would clear things up.

Registered

The Agera S is 500 kilos lighter than the Veyron and has more power, of course its going to pull hard on the Veyron.

The test track issue should only give the Veyron an advantage, if the track isn't as smooth or whatever the AWD system will help a lot more that Koenigsegg's RWD.

As per the drivers, it seemed like Koenigsegg's test driver didn't do too much either than floor it, just listen to the engine notes. Also, we see the Veyron was set in Top Speed mode, which means it was producing full boost and was a little more aerodynamic. Plus the driver of the Veyron had traction control on, whereas the Koenigsegg didn't.

The Veyron's number haven't been reproduced, probably because they're claims are a bit exaggerated. Honestly the more I think about this race, the more it seems clear how the Agera S should have destroyed the Veyron.

900 hp CCXF with 6-speed manual keeping up with the Veyron. Ran on regular fuel according to the driver so makes closer to 806 hp but Dragtimes decided to go ahead and publish it without the hp figure in the Veyron race leading people to believe it was more powerful than it actually was. Then to add to the confusion they later published it with 1024 hp and 1098 hp as a CCXR which produced nearly identical trap times as the CCXF somehow, indicating it too ran on regular pump gas.

Registered

The Agera R did 0 - 100 kph in 3,7 sec during the Guinness runs.. If they knew they could eliminate 0,8 sec on that run i bet you they would have..
Still from a rolling start it was clear that the Veyron wouldnt stand a chance, more hp and less weight for the Agera. As the 0 - 100 kph times are miles apart ( claimed 2,4 sec for the Veyron ) still, its obvious that Koenigsegg still has alot to work on with its "launch control" and power delivery. ( i know its 2 resp 4 Wheel drive but still.. )

What impresses me the most is how Koenigsegg has developed the car since the CCX and CCXR. They are miles apart in acceleration and handling even though the "skin" is almost identical. And this is the best way to mesure its r&d, to the previous model. Comparing with a Veyron, Huayra, LaFerrari or P1 is like comparing apples with pears..

Comparing with other brands are much more fun though for us car enthusiast who likes debating like most friends are debating "Chealsea, Man U or Arsenal"..

Registered

Bottom line is 0-100 kmh is a worthless measure and you shouldn't draw conclusions before you've actually seen the cars race each other. I've read that Koenigsegg's runway grows algae so how does the Agera R's launch there compare with say the McLaren MP4-12C running 0-100 kmh in 2,9 s on a drag strip? Must be worse right, 3,7 s vs 2,9 s?

And how come then a 458 pulls on a MP4 from a roll but gets completely obliterated by the Egg?

0-100 kmh are so small margins with so many factors it's impossible to tell what will happen until you've actually seen it.

Registered

Registered

I actually think 0-100 kph times are very important, not for the numbers itself but to measure traction, suspension etc. Good acceleration times often gives you answerd to how well developed its chassi and computer technology is.

Registered

1) When you have SportAuto doing 0-100 kmh in 3,1 in the Veyron and 3,8 in the manual 6-speed CCX, then it's questionable how much weight you should put into a one time 3,7 time from a Agera R on a different track when it quite clearly has much more traction, better gear ratio and a smoother torque delivery than the CCX and CCR Evo/faux-CCX ever did?

In theory a 0-100 kmh time could be somewhat useful, but how do you measure it as per the above? When you compare cars that all push the limits way beyond mechanical grip then any number of things could, in terms of numbers, make the car appear better or worse than it really is. Switching from a drag strip to a slippery runway could make a a massive difference. As could the tyres. Or the weather. Or driver mistakes where there is no LC.

2) What we do know from direct comparisons is that the Agera is incredibly much quicker than a 458 or a 599 GTB, and assuming the MP4 as well, from a 50 kmh roll on unlike their earlier versions which struggled with just about any car from launch in either roll on or dig; so at best we are not talking 0-100 kmh times but rather 0-50 kmh times since the Agera smokes them in 50-100 kmh. Now let's for arguments sake say that the Agera stinks in the small window before the roll on, then how relevant is 0-50 kmh?

3) Wouldn't a 0-300-0 kmh run test computer tech and chassis in a much more repeatable and most of all relevant fashion?

4) In terms of the Agera the LC on the Agera obviously does it's job the way it's supposed to. No more wheelspin through the first three gears but rather the LC kicks in right at the edge of mechanical grip at the beginning of slip via millisecond readings from sensors that compare the car's speed with the wheels rev and limits the rpm accordingly to align the two. The LC leeches on the sensors of the ABS/TCS/ESC-system, so it will be as good or bad as the ABS (I believe it's Bosch in the Agera) and the system should be more than adequate considering it's good for 6,66 s 300-0 kmh corrections. So where do you go from Bosch and "the edge of mechanical grip"?

I just don't see why the Agera would be any worse at this, or why it would even matter even if there was some way of knowing if is actually was without lining up the cars and have them race each other.

Registered

Agree with some, disagree with some.. 0-300-0 i guess a Venom GT would beat the Agera? Does it have more advanced systems and chassi? No, only more hp that comes in hand from like 50 or 100 kph.

With differences so small as 0,1 - 0,6 sec i think surface etc could be a huge factor, didnt think of that. Tires matter hugely as well but i see them as a part of the car, change supplier if they dont do the job. Dont blame poor grip on the tires if you puts them on your customer cars.

Still i dont see how an egg would beat a MP 4 from 50-100 kph? It takes the McLaren like 1,0 sec to cover that?
I think Koenigegg needs to figure out a better way for its L/C to work. With their pricing you must be on the top of the food chain in every measurable way compared to a car which costs a 6:th of an Agera.

Registered

What's wrong with the Venom GT? Regardless what you think of the car it rides a mainly Lotus chassi on Penske dampers and the same Ricardo gear box as the MP4-12C GT3. It's done 427 kmh which is by far a greater accomplishment than a 0-100 kmh time, so yes of course it's good? And when did they snatch 0-300-0?

If the Agera instantly gets a clear jump on a 458 out of the gate from a roll while the MP4 doesn't, then how is that less significant than a vague 1 second 50-100 kmh time on a different surface? Seeing is believing and what is shown in the videos above are much better launches from the Agera against comparable cars. Forget the numbers because they are not and can not be accurate.

And what changes do you propose they'd make with the LC? The MP4's fuel injection, starter motor, park distance control and probably a few more things all come from Bosch. They will update the 2013 MP4-12C GT3 with Bosch's latest Motorsport ABS/TCS, the same as the Agera. Or the Huayra, Zonda R or Revolucion for that matter since they also use Bosch. Probably the LaFerrari and P1 as well albeit licensed and as far as I'm aware unofficial.

So why is Bosch in McLaren MP4 more impressive than Bosch in Koenigsegg? You make it sound like this is some great McLaren innovation but it's off the shelf technology and shouldn't be that much different from one maker to the other. The Bosch system tells the ECU the tyres are slipping and it limits the revs until the Bosch system gives it a green light again. It's pretty straight forward?

A forum community dedicated to the luxury lifestyle and open to all watch, boat, exotic or luxury vehicle owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, releases, displays, performance, rallys, models, builds, watches, travel, lifestyles, reviews, classifieds, and more!